RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

"Manfredi, Albert E" <> Fri, 03 March 2017 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8908612950F for <>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:56:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q7RPgNJZLIUv for <>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:56:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 759F0129411 for <>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:56:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v232u1dI053388; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:56:01 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v232tsEo053249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:55:54 -0700
Received: from (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:55:53 -0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:55:53 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <>
To: David Farmer <>
Subject: RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Topic: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Index: AQHSk6aBc0GC3/s6VkejKSh9uOtZ66GCOwMggAAG9SCAAJgEgIAAB1oA//96qjCAAJGUgP//eoCA
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 02:55:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 02:56:03 -0000

From: David Farmer [] 

> Because, it doesn't say IIDs are themselves required.

I see this as being a semantic game. As long as an address consists of a prefix, and it has to in order for the packet to be forwarded "the usual way" across routers, the remaining bits will be an ID pointing to a specific interface. I don’t think we are suggesting here that any prefix greater than 64 bits MUST result in a flat network. Or at least, I'm not.

> In fact it says "at a minimum, a node may consider that unicast
> addresses (including its own) have no internal structure".

As a minimum, sure, that's always the case. A node might possibly assume this, as a minimum. "As a minimum" the rule can apply to any IPv6 node, even /64 nodes. A router, for instance, might be configured to only route ten 128-bit addresses, each one to a particular egress interface, and blindly send the rest over an 11th egress interface, for all other traffic. That works fine, as long as the number of 128-bit addresses doesn't grow too much.

> And I'd now suggest it should say, if you use an IID it must be
> 64 bits unless overridden my an IPv6-over-foo spec.

But this would make "as a minimum" phrase lose all its meaning? Now it says that this flat routing scheme must be the only one allowable, for prefixes > 64. So I don’t think that's right.